Reality Vs Playability and the effect in Multiplay

[RIPTIDE]

Actually this surprises me. Since the Su-27's maneuverability and HMS gives a small extra advantage in WVR fights, I estimated the F-15's K/D ratio would be under 0.6 (without crashes) and clearly it's above 0.6 even with crashes factored in. Thanks for the post, this is quite interesting to see. Perhaps I will train with AIM-7s instead of AIM-120s when I get the chance.

Recently the 104th has also loaded up a restricted Payload mission when there's admin online to watch over it. Its a blast. :thumbup: Pity I can't load up 8 7's though :D

[SgtPappy]

That sounds more like the Cold War stuff I've been looking for!

 

Question though: I've taken a look at the 51st stats and for the '80s week apparently AIM-120B/Cs have been fired. Any of those got kills, or am I reading something wrong here? I assume that the server wasn't "payload-watched" like the 104th's newer server.

[Case]

Recently the 104th has also loaded up a restricted Payload mission when there's admin online to watch over it. Its a blast. :thumbup: Pity I can't load up 8 7's though :D

They copied our idea of having an 80's week, which was indeed a blast.

 

Question though: I've taken a look at the 51st stats and for the '80s week apparently AIM-120B/Cs have been fired. Any of those got kills, or am I reading something wrong here? I assume that the server wasn't "payload-watched" like the 104th's newer server.

Since our server does not have kill messages, I've made a program that automatically kicks players that use restricted weapons, and this worked well and did not require an admin to be around. However, since the program uses a 5 second refresh time, people can and have fired restricted weapons, and these have hit and killed players. However, on the stats page those kills are not counted.

 

It looks like we'll have another 80's week next week ;)

Edited December 7, 2010 by Case

[Bimbac]

I hope that in the future the advancements in DCS franchise will incorporate real-time radar physics. That would really separate men from the boys, don't you think? :)

[RIPTIDE]

I hope that in the future the advancements in DCS franchise will incorporate real-time radar physics. That would really separate men from the boys, don't you think? :)

Yes. But in more ways than one, think processor power... think real time radar via ray tracing algorithms.

 

 

[Cali]

They copied our idea of having an 80's week, which was indeed a blast.

 

 

Since our server does not have kill messages, I've made a program that automatically kicks players that use restricted weapons, and this worked well and did not require an admin to be around. However, since the program uses a 5 second refresh time, people can and have fired restricted weapons, and these have hit and killed players. However, on the stats page those kills are not counted.

 

It looks like we'll have another 80's week next week ;)

 

I for one hate kill messages, lots of people fire actives, et's and just turn away and run....wait to see if they get a kill. I don't know why the 104th still has them on. I didn't get to fly in the 80's on the 51st, but I remember back in FC1 and it was fun.

[S77th-konkussion]

I don't know why they were ever put there in the first place..

[Grimes]

I don't know why they were ever put there in the first place..

 

Its the game aspect of the sim coming out and showing its head. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was something more than just a stats repeater. But that's a whole different thing.

 

Interesting stats report Case!

 

Its sad to see such a drop-off in flight hours between the two weeks. But even with less flight hours approx 100 more R-73s were fired, oddly in comparison, the Aim-9 had just 5 more shots. So it seems more fights got to the merge, and more often than not the aircraft with R-73s was in a position to shoot. The hit/kill ratio of the R-73 between both weeks is quite close, but not quite identical.

[Cali]

Grimes, not many people like 80's missions. I don't mind them sometimes, it's something different, like guns only. But I only want or can take so much of it. I flew in the 104th twice in the past few days. Once I found out it was the 80's mission I quit. I shot a C-17 with a ER and people said nice kill, but this is a 80's mission. I said sorry and left.

[SgtPappy]

I think there's just gool ol' Cold War dogfighting involved in the 80's missions. Less about radar and more about the merge.

 

I personally think that makes it aircraft vs aircraft more-so than radar management and BVR SA. Case, do you have any videos of 80's week fights?

Edited December 8, 2010 by SgtPappy

[104th_Crunch]

Matter of taste, but I think I could handle no active missile missions for the majority of the time. Merges are more often and fun, and being forced to launch on 1 bandit at a time adds much excitement.

[GGTharos]

Actually the 80's Cold War WAS all about the radar and BVR. Hence the Eagle.

 

I think there's just gool ol' Cold War dogfighting involved in the 80's missions. Less about radar and more about the merge.

 

Except in reality we do know that the entire package is the aircraft, not just bits and pieces that people who like to choose or consider.

 

I personally think that makes it aircraft vs aircraft more-so than radar management and BVR SA. Case, do you have any videos of 80's week fights?

[SgtPappy]

Actually the 80's Cold War WAS all about the radar and BVR. Hence the Eagle.

 

There's no doubting this. But stats in the game show that more merges and guns battles must occur in the absence of AMRAAMs. Thus, I deduce more emphasis must be placed on CWC than enforcing BVR prowess. Note that I say 'less' radar management. Not none at all.

 

Except in reality we do know that the entire package is the aircraft, not just bits and pieces that people who like to choose or consider.

 

I'm not arguing that fact, GG.

 

But I AM saying that in a game like FC2, I much prefer flying without active missiles. As per above, the game's got more merges due to a lack of actives. I'm very interested in actives from a tech perspective, but not as much from a gaming perspective, as the aerodynamics of the aircraft is the best part about airplanes. And that's the best thing about games. You can choose how to have your fun :)

Edited December 8, 2010 by SgtPappy

[MoGas]

Russians based their doctrine on defense, thus EOS and GCI. But we don't see much of GCI in on line mission design.

 

EOS works only outside clouds, if it is a cloudy day EOS is not working proberly. So they main system was still radar, at least for the east german MiG-29 sqn's. At night and without clouds, the used EOS.

 

If the EOS doctrine would be the main tactic, then you are screwed.

Edited December 8, 2010 by MoGas

[Case]

Interesting stats report Case!

Thanks Grimes.

 

Its sad to see such a drop-off in flight hours between the two weeks.

There's no drop-off! The November 2010 80's week period is only a week long, where as November 2010 pre 80's week is three weeks long! So in fact there is an increase in flight hours...

 

Hold on the 104th has copied the 80`s week? First we don't run a 80`s WEEK, we just have a MS2 version in the 80`s style and we run it if we like to run in with the right people on it, and this already before the 51st even had a server up and runing on FC2.0, this kind of mission was there?!

And secondly the 104th dosent need to copie anything.

 

I don't know why you have to get upset about it. If it is a good idea, then feel free to copy it, I don't mind.

[Grimes]

 

There's no drop-off! The November 2010 80's week period is only a week long, where as November 2010 pre 80's week is three weeks long! So in fact there is an increase in flight hours...

 

 

Oh, I thought it was the week before. My mistake. Guess that makes that R-73 stat even more impressive.

[Cali]

The only server I saw to run a 80's mission was the 51st back in FC1. No other server attempted to do that. I know the 104th run a edited payload mission a short time ago, but that didn't last long. I think I remember someone saying because the numbers dropped off in their server so they ended it, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[RIPTIDE]

lol. Well, the phrase that was used was "restricted payload" and the story in terms of the misison brief was that stocks of ER's/ET's/77's/120's etc had been depleted so now both sides were down to reserve stocks of older gear. So technically it was not 80's mission as the timeline remained the same. 'Course this is could be true considering all the Spamraamers about. :D

[jaeger_101]

many many moon´s ago i was in 104th TS during the mission planning for a 80´s mission.

 

just for the record

 

IMO, the 80´s scenario is best suited for FC2, in combination with a human GCI / AWACS, as it is sometimes done by the 51st, brings out the best of FC2.

 

cheers

 

Jaeger

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

If the EOS doctrine would be the main tactic, then you are screwed.

I did not say EOS is the main tactic. However, if I am not mistaken, Russians use ground based jammers that are very powerful. In the environment of heavy, very heavy jamming, both sides are broadcasting very powerful jamming signals over wide range of frequencies, and (relatively) small radars of fighter airplanes may not be very useful. There comes EOS and flying low ... Ground based jammers are not even modeled in FC. Edited December 8, 2010 by =4c= Hajduk Veljko

[104th_Crunch]

Yes Riptide, NATO command has given their pilots cr@p for spamming away tax payer dollars and the timeline has not changed. A2G still has all weapons.

 

RVE, 169th, 51st, 104th have all ran a 80s style mission in the past. I think maybe RvE came up with the idea. Who cares though who came up with the idea. Sorry Case, I can see why MoGas was a little upset as your statement sounds a tad arrogant. Anyway, no need to get into that here. I have used other's ideas before and vice versa.

[GGTharos]

... Makes you wonder why all those planes carry SPJ's and other counter-measures, huh?

 

Here's the answer: Those 'powerful ground based jammers' are very limited in capability, just like any other jammer. Specifically they will be limited in azimuth, so you won't be covering every aircraft out there ... not by far. They might help you sneak in some 'unknown shooters' which is certainly a well-known (IIRC) Russian tactic.

Flying low has nothing to do with this. Flying low eats up fuel and reduces missile performance in low-high shots. Russian pilots tended to train to fly at medium altitudes, not low.

 

I did not say EOS is the main tactic. However, if I am not mistaken, Russians use ground based jammers that are very powerful. In the environment of heavy, very heavy jamming, both sides are broadcasting very powerful jamming signals over wide range of frequencies, and (relatively) small radars of fighter airplanes may not be very useful. There comes EOS and flying low ... Ground based jammers are not even modeled in FC.

[Aliboy]

I dunno much and maybe I'm off topic here but correct me If I'm wrong aren't real Mig-29 pilots trained to fire R-27R in pairs at the same target to maintain balance and get ready for close combat ?...also I'm a bit confused about Real GCI..when the GCI gives you a target to shootdown..does it mean the pilot can decide how and when to shoot it down..or are there much more detailed orders that follow?

[FLANKERATOR]

I would say russians pilots are trained to fire a salvo of 2 missiles of mixed seekers. (radar guided/Infra Red/Anti-Radiation).

Too bad that the third type is not modelled in FC's BVR...could be a lot of fun for the russian birds :D

[Boberro]

Have Anti radiation AA missiles ever been produced in large scale? oO